rna 


CM  i fitinefic- 


Cfifr)™  i a 


MIGHT  or  RIGHT? 


The  Fourteen  Points  and 
the  Disposition  of 
Kiao-Chau 


Pubiishea  by 

CHINESE  PATRIOTIC  COMMITTEE 
New  York  City 


May,  1919 


PUBLICATIONS  ISSUED  BY  THE  CHINESE 
PATRIOTIC  COMMITTEE 


1.  China  vs.  Japan.  February,  1919. 

2.  China’s  Claims  at  the  Peace  Table.  March,  1919. 

3.  The  Kiao-Chau  Settlement.  May,  1919. 

4.  Might  or  Right?  May,  1919. 

These  publications  will  be  mailed  upon  application. 

Address  all  communications  to 

MR.  K.  P.  WANG 

( Secretary  of  the  Committee ) 

510  West  113th  St. 

New  York  City 


MIGHT  OR  RIGHT? 

The  Fourteen  Points  and  the  Disposition  of 
Kiao-Chau 

The  year  1918  marked  the  beginning  of  an  end.  All 
uncertainty  concerning  the  ultimate  issues  involved  in 
the  war  disappeared  when  President  Wilson  on  Jan- 
uary 8,  1918,  voiced  the  sentiment  of  all  mankind  in 
his  address  to  Congress,  embodying  the  famous  four- 
teen principles.  Open  diplomacy,  we  were  told,  was 
to  take  the  place  of  secret  intrigues  of  the  past.  “Open 
covenants,  openly  arrived  at,”  were  alone  to  have 
legal  validity.  Power  politics  was  adjourned,  for  jus- 
tice, justice  that  knew  not  the  weak  nor  the  strong 
was  to  be  the  guiding  principle  in  international  rela- 
tions. Peoples  hitherto  submerged  under  the  domina- 
tion and  oppression  of  an  alien  power  were  promised 
the  right  of  self-determination.  Nations  hitherto  sand- 
wiched between  not  too  friendly  neighbors  were  guar- 
anteed an  outlet  to  the  high  seas.  Such  being  the  case, 
all  human  beings  irrespective  of  race  or  nationality 
were  filled  with  joy.  They  were  inspired,  for  towards 
the  end  of  the  year,  instead  of  the  ancient  Three  Wise 
Men  of  the  East,  the  modern  three  wise  men  of  Paris 
had  given  every  reason  for  the  plain  people  to  believe 
that,  at  last, — The  New  Order  Cometh. 

This  New  Order  does  not  come  to  China,  however. 
The  principles  enunciated  are  admittedly  sound,  but  up 
to  the  present  all  that  China  has  received  is  the  vibra- 
tion of  the  sound  but  not  the  application  of  the  princi- 

3 


pies.  The  decision  reached  by  the  “Big  Three”  in  re- 
gard to  Kiao-Chau  is  a surprise  to  all  those  who  are 
under  the  impression  that  justice  is  never  meant  to  be 
monopolized  by  Europe.  It  is  a surprise  to  the  world, 
for  a mere  flagrant  injustice  is  hardly  conceivable. 
The  evidence  justifies  the  assertion.  Those  who  are 
conversant  with  history  will  recall  that  in  the  early 
nineties,  the  late  Kaiser  had  been  fishing  for  a pretext 
to  impose  German  Kultur  on  the  peaceful  Chinese,  who 
were  too  peaceful  to  offer  the  desired  pretext  in  spite 
of  repeated  provocations.  As  time  passed,  the  mailed 
fist  became  itching  beyond  cure,  for  something  had 
to  be  done  before  others  got  busy  on  the  job.  Ac- 
cordingly William  Hohenzollern  took  advantage  of 
the  murder  of  two  priests — no  one  knew  who  killed 
them — so  that  in  all  solemnity  and  theatricality,  he 
commanded  his  crusaders  to  the  East  to  fight  for  Re- 
ligion, Kultur,  and  Fatherland.  Two  priests  mur- 
dered and  forty  millions  put  under  bondage ! Has  Ger- 
many acquired  any  rights  in  China,  recognizable  in  the 
light  of  justice,  morality  or  even  common  decency? 

In  1914  Japan  demanded  Germany  to  hand  over 
Kiao-Chau  with  the  express  purpose  of  returning  it  to 
China.  The  port  was  captured  as  expected  and  it  re- 
mains to  this  day  in  the  hands  of  the  usurper,  with 
China  as  the  sole  legatee  of  the  damages  incident  to 
the  war  and  the  crimes  committed  by  Japanese  sol- 
diers. They  had  commandeered  goods  and  services 
from  a sincere  and  honest  population  without 
compensation ; they  had  caused  damages  to  the  amount 
of  fifty  millions  of  dollars;  and  they  had  committed 
crimes,  brutalities  and  atrocities  comparable  to,  if  not 
worse  than,  those  committed  by  the  Prussians  in  Bel- 


4 


gium  and  Poland.  We  have  it  from  the  authority  of 
an  eye  witness  in  those  days  of  military  operation  that 
women  were  actually  outraged  by  hundreds.  The  pub- 
lic is  not  acquainted  with  these  facts,  because  it  does 
not  want  to  know  unpleasant  things.  It  prefers  sweet 
things  and  sweet  nothings.  It  refuses  to  believe  that 
any  nation  with  such  an  array  of  princes,  viscounts, 
barons  and  plumed -knights  parading  the  occidental 
world  at  regular  intervals  with  all  the  semblance  of 
civilization  should  look  like  innocent  flower  only  with 
serpents  under  it.  But  the  facts  above  enumerated  are 
undeniable,  and  with  these  facts  in  view,  the  question 
may  be  asked:  should  the  Japanese  delegates  be  al- 
lowed to  leave  Paris  with  their  trunks  packed  full  of 
spoils? 

The  decision  of  the  “Big  Three”  is  therefore  flag- 
rantly unjust  in  that  it  seeks  to  perpetuate  crimes  that 
ought  to  be  the  shame  of  the  civilized  world.  Two 
wrongs  do  not  make  one  right.  Has  B,  in  robbing 
A,  acquired  any  title  to  A’s  property  ? And  if  the  op- 
portunist C comes  along  and  robs  B,  is  A’s  title  to  his 
property  in  any  way  changed?  If  B escapes  unpun- 
ished for  the  crime  he  has  committed  for  a while  but 
is  subsequently  brought  to  justice,  will  it  be  right  to 
allow  C,  who  has  in  turn  robbed  B,  to  run  away  loaded 
with  the  property  that  is  really  A’s?  Is  might  right? 
To  answer  in  the  affirmative  is  to  overturn  the  very 
foundation  of  civilization. 

The  public  is  yet  unaware  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  big  powers  have  been  bulldozed  by  Japan;  it  is 
yet  ignorant  of  the  consequences.  An  examination  of 
the  map  will  bring  out  the  fact  that  Kiao-Chau  is  the 

S 


best  port  of  the  whole  of  North  China.  It  will  be  the 
commercial  center  of  North  China  as  soon  as  normal 
conditions  return.  The  control  of  such  a port  means 
the  control  of  the  economic  development  of  an  enor- 
mous hinterland  lying  in  the  interior.  Japan  will  be 
able  to  manipulate  things  in  such  a way  as  to  derive 
for  herself  the  greatest  possible  benefit.  With  her  in 
the  key  position  economic  burdens  will  be  unbearable 
for  the  natives  as  well  as  for  the  outsiders.  Possessed 
of  a hinterland  that  has  no  access  to  the  sea,  the  Jugo- 
slavs, we  are  told,  are  supposed  to  receive  Fiume, 
and  Poland  has  already  had  Danzig  internationalized. 
If  the  principle  of  the  necessity  of  an  outlet  to  the 
sea  is  applied  to  the  Poles  and  to  be  applied  to  the 
Jugo-Slavs,  how  much  more  should  it  be  applied  to 
the  Chinese?  If  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  as_a 
key  to  the  whole  valley  is  essential  to  the  United 
States,  why  is  not  Kiao-Chau  equally  essential  to 
China?  Sound  principles  must  be  followed  by  sound 
application ; otherwise  they  no  longer  remain  sound. 

Many  of  us  can  study  international  relations  in  the 
light  of  human  nature  without  being  bothered  by  the 
Sunday  school  platitudes  and  afternoon  tea  ameni- 
ties. They  are  asking  whether  China  is  after  all 
allowed  to  continue  to  exist.  If  she  is  to  be  inevitably 
doomed  to  extermination,  then  for  heaven’s  sake,  let 
her  die  a natural  death  once  for  all,  without  lingering 
or  having  her  body  mutilated  gradually  and  piecemeal. 
The  question  is  not  so  absurd  as  it  may  seem.  In 
reaching  the  decision  concerning  Kiao-Chau,  the  gen- 
tlemen at  Paris  are  merely  postponing  the  funeral  serv- 
ice Japan  has  planned  for  her  neighbor.  She  has  got 
Manchuria,  Formosa  and  Korea,  and  now  she  is 

6 


given  Kiao-Chau.  With  privileges  to  build  railroads 
radiating  from  both  places  to  all  parts  of  China  she 
has  woven  a spider’s  web  with  which  she  will  un- 
doubtedly hold  China  in  perpetual  bondage.  With 
the  aid  of  the  treaties  of  1915  and  those  of  1918, 
shamelessly  forced  on  China  at  the  point  of  the  bayo- 
net, she  will  be  able  to  control  her  neighbor  politically 
and  economically  and  in  time  to  announce  to  the 
world  the  passing  of  the  Middle  Kingdom. 

“But,”  comes  along  the  apologist  who  has  an  over- 
dose of  the  sweet  nothings  of  the  Mikado  & Com- 
pany, “Japan  will  return  the  port  to  China.”  Evi- 
dently they  are  not  aware  that  the  word  “return”  is 
not  as  sweet  as  it  may  sound  if  not  accompanied  by 
the  whens  and  hows.  It  is  one  thing  to  return  the 
port  in  one  year  and  quite  another,  in  a thousand 
years.  It  is  one  thing  to  return  it  unconditionally, 
and  quite  another,  if  under  conditions  that  represent 
losses  to  China  greater  than  the  alienation  of  the  port. 
Furthermore,  have  we  any  reason  to  trust  to  Japan 
the  fair  and  square  administration  of  the  territory 
even  for  a short  time?  Her  present  outrages  in 
Korea  speak  louder  than  her  promises,  which  are 
nothing  but  manufactured  luxuries  for  foreign  con- 
sumption. It  is  time  for  the  world  to  learn  that  sin- 
cerity of  purpose  does  not  exist  simultaneously  with 
the  creed  of  imperialism,  nor  is  honesty  to  be  expected 
from  power  politics. 

Happily  the  United  States  is  in  a position  to  cor- 
rect the  wrongs  while  there  is  yet  time.  She  has 
helped  China  in  those  critical  days  after  the  Boxer 
Uprising.  She  is  not  a party  to  the  secret  understand- 


7 


ings  between  Japan  and  the  European  allies  in  the 
dark  hours  of  the  world  war.  She  is  today  not  only 
the  greatest  example  of  democracy  but  also  the  most 
powerful  nation  in  the  world.  China  still  looks  upon 
her  as  the  champion  of  a justice  that  knows  no  dis- 
criminations and  a democracy  that  tolerates  no  im- 
perialism. 

More  than  twenty-four  hundred  years  ago  there 
was  born  in  this  province  of  Shantung  a man  whose 
name  was  destined  to  become  a household  word.  He 
was,  is  and  will  ever  be  the  idol  of  all  China  and  the 
moral  teacher  of  her  millions.  There  remains  to  this 
day  at  this  very  spot  a temple,  ivy-clad  and  gray,  with 
evergreens  shading  the  whole  area  where  pilgrims 
from  all  parts  of  the  country  come  to  pay  their  tribute 
to  the  man  who  has  marked  out  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual life  as  the  only  life  worth  living.  Had  Confucius 
lived  today,  he  would  have  counseled  resistance  to  the 
unjust  disposal  of  land  and  people  as  if  they  were 
chattels,  for  in  the  struggle  for  righteousness  there 
is  glory.  He  would  have  appealed  to  America  to  do 
justice,  “not  to  do  to  others  that  which  she  does  not 
want  done  to  herself.”  Hearken  to  the  sage ! 
Twenty-four  centuries  are  looking  down  upon  the 
United  States  with  anxious  eyes,  for  upon  the  deci- 
sion that  the  United  States  is  about  to  make  will  de- 
pend the  possibility  of  a New  Order  and  the  destiny 
of  an  ancient  and  distinct  civilization. 


8 


